Laserfiche WebLink
I I I <br /> Comprehensive Transit Service Plan <br /> EVERETT TRANSIT Executive Summary <br /> 1998 1999 2000 2001 <br /> Riders 50,132 55,800 60,106 57,399 <br /> Hours 17,088 21,432 22,896 22,936 <br /> Miles 236,132 243,048 271,407 244,224 <br /> Pass/Hr 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.5 <br /> Pass/Mile 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.24 <br /> Table 5:Everett Transit Demand Response Ridership and Productivity, 1998-2001 <br /> The ridership and productivity of all Everett Transit routes is summarized in Table 6. <br /> However, the source of data for this comparison is different than that used for <br /> Table 4, which was based upon data reported to the Federal Transit Administration <br /> based upon a mandated service sampling methodology. <br /> Average Weekday Service Provided <br /> Route Trips Miles Hours Riders <br /> Per Per <br /> No. NB/WB SB/EB Total NB/WB SB/EB Total NB/WB SB/EB Total Mile Hour <br /> 2 1 20 21 371.0 ' 177.3 193.6 32.4 1 16.1 16.3 913 1 2.5 1 28.2 <br /> 4 I 19 19 50.0 25.0 25.0 6.3 1 3.2 3.2 62 I 1.2 1 9.8 <br /> 5 I 35 1 35 38.4 1 19.2 19.2 7.9 1 3.9 1 3.9 93 1 2.4 1 11.8 <br /> 6 27 25 347.9 181.7 166.2 29.2 15.8 13.5 703 2.0 24.0 <br /> 7 32 I 32 442.6 220.2 1 222.4 40.3 1 19.7 1 20.6 1,669 3.8 1 41.4 <br /> 7A 19 1 21 346.9 164.0 1 182.9 23.4 1 11.6 1 11.8 529 1.5 22.6 <br /> 7B 1 11 11 191.3 97.4 1 94.0 14.2 1 7.7 1 6.6 272 1 1.4 1 19.2 <br /> 8 9 I 9 106.2 53.1 1 53.1 6.7 1 3.4 1 3.4 41 1 0.4 1 6.1 <br /> 20 22 1 19 421.6 1 226.8 1 194.8 34.7 1 18.4 1 16.3 820 1 1.9 1 23.6 <br /> 23 22 1 21 318.1 1 162.3 1 155.7 22.3 1 10.9 11.4 367 1 1.2 1 16.4 <br /> 25 5 1 4 37.2 1 19.1 1 18.1 3.8 2.2 1 1.6 294 1 7.9 1 78.4 <br /> Total 1 221 I 217 2,671.1 11,346.1 11,325.0 221.11 112.7 108.4 5,763 2.2 26.1 <br /> Table 6:Service,Ridership and Productivity by Route,July,2002 <br /> Table 6 is based on Everett Transit internal service and ridership documents, based <br /> upon daily system-wide ridership counts and measured service operated. The miles <br /> and hours represent those actually operated in revenue service and do not include <br /> any layover or recovery time. Therefore, riders per hour calculated by this method <br /> will be greater than that calculated using traditional revenue hour calculations. <br /> The ridership values are based on daily counts taken between July 1, 2001 and June <br /> 30, 2002. <br /> The Alternatives <br /> Three alternative scenarios were developed for evaluation in this project. These are <br /> briefly described as: <br /> Perteet Engineering,Inc. Page xvii <br />